Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Gregrios]

What does viewable proof consist of?

[Juan_Bottom]

What does viewable proof consist of?

Mostly what I ment was physicly different. Not just simply on a genetic level. Something where you wouldn't have to be a professional to notice/understand the differences.

Are you being difficult?

[Neoteny]

The point that I'm making I guess is that evolution seems to be less about absolute proof and more about razor's edge. I know razor's edge is the wrong term but I'm referring to the term that means that the most probable answer is most likely the right answer. This "razor's edge" (if you'll except my mistaken term)seems to be the major basis for evolution. Is that fairly accurate?

Occam's razor, fyi.

There is plenty of evidence, though your absolute proof might be out of grasp. As I've said many times in this thread, "science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove." Brilliant minds have been trying to disprove evolution for quite a while, and nobody has successfully done it.

[Gregrios]

The point that I'm making I guess is that evolution seems to be less about absolute proof and more about razor's edge. I know razor's edge is the wrong term but I'm referring to the term that means that the most probable answer is most likely the right answer. This "razor's edge" (if you'll except my mistaken term)seems to be the major basis for evolution. Is that fairly accurate?

Occam's razor, fyi.

There is plenty of evidence, though your absolute proof might be out of grasp. As I've said many times in this thread, "science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove." Brilliant minds have been trying to disprove evolution for quite a while, and nobody has successfully done it.

Thanks. I can never seem to remember that term. That was bothering me quite a bit.

So, Occum's razor can indeed be appied to the theory of evolution. That's basiclly what I wanted to know.

Thanks again.

[Neoteny]

The point that I'm making I guess is that evolution seems to be less about absolute proof and more about razor's edge. I know razor's edge is the wrong term but I'm referring to the term that means that the most probable answer is most likely the right answer. This "razor's edge" (if you'll except my mistaken term)seems to be the major basis for evolution. Is that fairly accurate?

Occam's razor, fyi.

There is plenty of evidence, though your absolute proof might be out of grasp. As I've said many times in this thread, "science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove." Brilliant minds have been trying to disprove evolution for quite a while, and nobody has successfully done it.

Thanks. I can never seem to remember that term. That was bothering me quite a bit.

So, Occum's razor can indeed be appied to the theory of evolution. That's basiclly what I wanted to know.

Thanks again.

It can indeed. No problem.

[PLAYER57832]

The point that I'm making I guess is that evolution seems to be less about absolute proof and more about razor's edge. I know razor's edge is the wrong term but I'm referring to the term that means that the most probable answer is most likely the right answer. This "razor's edge" (if you'll except my mistaken term)seems to be the major basis for evolution. Is that fairly accurate?

Remember that I have given a highly condensed version and mostly based on what I learned quite a few years ago, with a few episodes of NOVA, et al added in. So, you cannot judget he razor by what I have said alone ... I was just trying to get you "in the neighborhood".

But the answer is mixed. If you are talking about specific details. Did x species derive from y, then you are essentially correct. However, a lot of this is as close to absolute proof as you ever get in science. That is, providing there is no complete and utter suspecsion of reality as we know it, it is true.

The most basic example are fossils. When you actually look at fossils, you see something that is a complete mirror of living bones or even (sometimes) tissue. Every detail is exact. And, you see a diversity that would exceed even George Lucas' imagination. Is it possible that this represents something other than living tissue made to rock? Perhaps, but when you get to the point where the best explanation is "Satan put them there to confuse us" (an early Creationist argument, now they tend to suggest other explanations). Its like my teacher told my class we began writing fiction. At some point you have to do better than "I woke up and realized it was all a dream."

The same happens when you look, really look at the rock formations found in various places... particularly highways in desert areas. (the same features exist outside of the desert, but as my Geologist friends are fond of saying "it is so much easier to see the details without all that pesky vegetation around ). If you don't live near any such area, find pictures in Geology texts or references. What you see are layers. You see a clear layer of one type of rock, followed by another ... and another. You may see "pillars" or "protrusions" of another rock type here and there. Again, I am simplifying, but geologists know what those layers represent. Broadly, you can group rocks into several differant classes. You have sedenatary rocks, like shale that are formed by compression of sands, silt, etc. into rock. Then you have igneous rock. These are formed by hot magma ... volcanoes and the like. AND you have metamorphic rock. This is other types of rock that has been compressed under extreme pressure and heat to change. Marble, diamonds, etc are this type.

They classify rocks generally much the way biologists classify species by the way it is formed and its mineral content. Also like in biology, though there are variations within each label, classification. Each set of minerals is slightly differant. Each geologic layer is just a bit differant from others. This means that if you find 2 layers in differant areas that have the same chemical composition, the same "fingerprint", then they were formed at the same time in the same way as part of the same feature.

Again, could that be wrong? Again it sort of depends on what you consider "possible". The processes to make these various rocks are facts, not theories. We can make diamonds, though not the nicest ones sold at auctions for hundreds of thousands of dollars. We definitely can see what happens after volcanic eruptions, etc. To prove these ideas wrong, you would have to prove that the Earth's processes were completely differant then they are at some point in our early history. Of course, Creationists like to step in and say "aha... that is exactly what happened. God did not need to use those processes, he just made it all." Really, that gets into philosophy (why would God bother to create all these processes at all, etc.). but again, "poof" it was there just is not an answer scientists want to accept, not when there is any other viable alternative.

These are just brief synopsis. For the real proof, real details you can look in just about any decent library.

But, the bottom line is that scientists rely on proof. Everyone you meet, who has gone through school won't be able to fully explain each and every theory. But, here is the thing. Can everyone (not those in school right now, I mean) explain Trigonometry ... or Calculus? Yet, these are absolutely true and work. At some point, you do learn and memorize. Questioning is fine ... wonderful, in fact. BUT, you have to be sure you have some basic knowledge first or you end up saying something like

"Wait, yellow and blue cannot possibly make green because yellow and red make orange".

That is OK if the person you are talking with is 3, but ... And that is the thing (and sorry to keep harping on this) So much of what is put forward as "evidence against evolution" is really and truly at just about that level of error. NO, I don't mean the error of a three year old, but definitely errors that anyone past junior high really should not make. This is actually the main reason Creationists have been tolerated. Their assertions are so contrary to basic science, to the basic knowledge we have today that the only ones who could possibly believe it are those who have never had science. Well ... guess what. That bill has suddenly been filled in huge quantities.

[jonesthecurl]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

[Gregrios]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

[Iliad]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

well just a few posts away you couldn't remember what it was. And he went out of his way to help you and to remind you what it is. And you snapped back at him. Damn your friends must love you

[Gregrios]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

well just a few posts away you couldn't remember what it was. And he went out of his way to help you and to remind you what it is. And you snapped back at him. Damn your friends must love you

You must be the real sensitive type.

[Iliad]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

well just a few posts away you couldn't remember what it was. And he went out of his way to help you and to remind you what it is. And you snapped back at him. Damn your friends must love you

You must be the real sensitive type.

I just found it funny that someone helped you and you snap at them.

[Gregrios]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

well just a few posts away you couldn't remember what it was. And he went out of his way to help you and to remind you what it is. And you snapped back at him. Damn your friends must love you

You must be the real sensitive type.

I just found it funny that someone helped you and you snap at them.

That's not snapping. That's just pointing out the obvious.

A person doesn't explain something that's been explained three posts previous because they're just helping out. No, no. They do it to either show their "superior knowledge" or to degrade the other person. As simple as that.

[Iliad]

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

well just a few posts away you couldn't remember what it was. And he went out of his way to help you and to remind you what it is. And you snapped back at him. Damn your friends must love you

You must be the real sensitive type.

I just found it funny that someone helped you and you snap at them.

That's not snapping. That's just pointing out the obvious.

A person doesn't explain something that's been explained three posts previous because they're just helping out. No, no. They do it to either show their "superior knowledge" or to degrade the other person. As simple as that.

Or because they missed that someone else did it. But that never entered your mind did it? No they're all out to get you aren't they greg.

[Juan_Bottom]

I hate philosophy.

[Gregrios]

A person doesn't explain something that's been explained three posts previous because they're just helping out. No, no. They do it to either show their "superior knowledge" or to degrade the other person. As simple as that.

Or because they missed that someone else did it. But that never entered your mind did it? No they're all out to get you aren't they greg.

[/quote]

Yes. That did enter my mind but I proceed on the premise that people read the posts before they respond. Maybe that's my fault for giving way too much credit to others like Curly.

[joecoolfrog]

So to sum up the evidence for creationism is;



























































tumbleweed drifts across the bottom of the post

[Gregrios]

I applaud you for trying to get this thread back on topic. I can't bring forth any proof of creation and therefore I know my place in this "debate".

I will say however that the basis of evolution leaves a very, very, very small window open for alternative possiblities.

[jonesthecurl]

...and you mean "Occam's Razor". devised by William of Occam. put simply, the most obvious explanation (taking all the data into account) is most likely to be true.

Thanks for the spell-check. ("A" not "U") Got it.

As for the meaning, we've already discussed that but thanks for showing off your superior knowledge.

Sorry didn't spot someone had already said it.

[PLAYER57832]

I applaud you for trying to get this thread back on topic. I can't bring forth any proof of creation and therefore I know my place in this "debate".

I will say however that the basis of evolution leaves a very, very, very small window open for alternative possiblities.

Yes, that is about the size of it.

And, as for Occam's Razor ... it is not that Evolution is the most probable answer, it is the only one presented to date that accounts for all the evidence. If anyone can find a better answer ... science, the world, would love to hear it. (seriously!)

[MeDeFe]

I applaud you for trying to get this thread back on topic. I can't bring forth any proof of creation and therefore I know my place in this "debate".

I will say however that the basis of evolution leaves a very, very, very small window open for alternative possiblities.

Yes, that is about the size of it.

And, as for Oxam's Razor ... it is not that Evolution is the most probable answer, it is the only one presented to date that accounts for all the evidence. If anyone can find a better answer ... science, the world, would love to hear it. (seriously!)

The guy's name is Occam.

[PLAYER57832]

I applaud you for trying to get this thread back on topic. I can't bring forth any proof of creation and therefore I know my place in this "debate".

I will say however that the basis of evolution leaves a very, very, very small window open for alternative possiblities.

Yes, that is about the size of it.

And, as for Oxam's Razor ... it is not that Evolution is the most probable answer, it is the only one presented to date that accounts for all the evidence. If anyone can find a better answer ... science, the world, would love to hear it. (seriously!)

The guy's name is Occam.

What can I say, I took it from the quote and I was tired ...

but I have corrected it in my "original post". : )

[3.13]

How can you say that!
Scientists have clearly found and carbon dated things that are older than 10,000 years
Have you never been to a museum, seen a dinasoaur skeleton they where found and have been around for millions of years
I respect your religous standings but the bible is meant to be interpreted.. not literally... "God" created the world in seven days but he didn't actually create the world it resembles the earth awakenign and peoples awakening from apes and such they have evolved from. There are thousands of holes in the bible (for example Mary was a barren woman who through the Angel whatever his name was had a son given to her by god and yet later in the bible Jesus has at least four brothers one of which wrights a passage in the bible and at least one sister). There are thousands of holes in the bible but there are no holes in science it has been proven and checked by hundreds of ver very very smart people and to say that evolution is false is crazy

[PLAYER57832]

How can you say that!
Scientists have clearly found and carbon dated things that are older than 10,000 years
Have you never been to a museum, seen a dinasoaur skeleton they where found and have been around for millions of years
I respect your religous standings but the bible is meant to be interpreted.. not literally...

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
I am not sure to whom you are responding. Most of the last 4 pages (at least) have been supporting of Evolution. Actually most of the pages since about 78 or so have been largely arguing for evolution.


This thread did start out as a "pro Creationism" thread and several have tried to post ideas about Scientific Creationism, but none of the "critical" evidence is scientifically valid (its either irrelevant, misstating of supposed scientific views or plain outright fraudulant information). The only valid argument of Creationists is "The Bible says..." and, as you pointed out most Christians and virtually all Jews, in addition to folks of many other religions (including atheism) support Evolution.

"God" created the world in seven days but he didn't actually create the world it resembles the earth awakenign and peoples awakening from apes and such they have evolved from. There are thousands of holes in the bible (for example Mary was a barren woman who through the Angel whatever his name was had a son given to her by god and yet later in the bible Jesus has at least four brothers one of which wrights a passage in the bible and at least one sister). There are thousands of holes in the bible but there are no holes in science it has been proven and checked by hundreds of ver very very smart people and to say that evolution is false is crazy

Well, as a believing Christian AND a scientist, I disagree with most of last paragraph, but I don't want to drive this thread into yet another tangent. Most of it was covered earlier anyway.

Though I will say Mary was not barran (that was Sarah), Mary was a virgin prior to having Jesus. Quite a differance.

Also, no real scientist will say that science is without holes ... in fact a scientist is generally the very first to admit that there is far more we don't know than things we know ... and that it is always possible (not probable, but slightly possible) that almost anything could be proven wrong.

I won't go so far as to say anyone who questions Evolution is "crazy", but I will most definitely say that any true dispute has to be a lot better reasoned than the "Scientific" Creationists' arguments. And, as Gr already said, the chance that Evolution is not at least mostly true is very, very, very, very slim. (and the chance that Scientific Creationists are correct ... absolutely zero)

[Snorri1234]

I think he just read the first post and responded.

[joecoolfrog]

How can you say that!
Scientists have clearly found and carbon dated things that are older than 10,000 years
Have you never been to a museum, seen a dinasoaur skeleton they where found and have been around for millions of years
I respect your religous standings but the bible is meant to be interpreted.. not literally... "God" created the world in seven days but he didn't actually create the world it resembles the earth awakenign and peoples awakening from apes and such they have evolved from. There are thousands of holes in the bible (for example Mary was a barren woman who through the Angel whatever his name was had a son given to her by god and yet later in the bible Jesus has at least four brothers one of which wrights a passage in the bible and at least one sister). There are thousands of holes in the bible but there are no holes in science it has been proven and checked by hundreds of ver very very smart people and to say that evolution is false is crazy

I think most sane people would pretty much agree with you